It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.



page: 1

log in


posted on Oct, 13 2002 @ 10:38 PM
how many on here believe in evolution and god at the same time???
just curios (sp)

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 03:02 PM
Personally I feel that God has the inherent capacity to make evolution his tool to create mankind.

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 03:44 PM
exactly... i think he started it off... and when he wanted to create man he stepped in an gave us a soul... like the bible says... he breathed in to us and created man... other wise we would be like those monkey men... with small brains and no soul....

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 04:15 PM
And perhaps there is a means by which what we call a soul becomes inherent. Once a life form reaches a certain point in development. Personally I feel that man was designed to do what they can do at present. But perhaps even that is unnecessary, history does cite there was intervention (from all points of view). That does in fact seem the answer.

We were created.

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 04:33 PM
I was hoping to achieve this topic under R. Daneel's posts, but that has been revealed... in any event...

What of the supposed "soul"? If man creates a sentient being... will it have a soul?

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 07:24 PM
If you remember the link on soul substance, it is apparent that there exist an inherent physicality to the soul. So if we make a "AI" type android, perhaps unless we incorporated in its design. Something at the level of technology equivalent to a human soul. It would not have the capacity to live beyond its basic design (would survive for a very long time).

In relation to clones my impressions is yes they do have a soul. As well in relation to any other type of biologically based life form we should develop.

[Edited on 15-10-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 07:39 PM

Why do you think a biologic sentient thing would have a soul, and a silicon sentient thing would not?

What is the soul?

(I think I can answer, Daneel just wants to see where the discussion goes first.)

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 09:34 PM
I am not presenting the idea that a silicon life form capable of independent thought does not have a soul. What I am presenting is that the soul is alive (in and of itself). Our technology does not at present have the ability to replicate it. This not meaning that at some time in the future it will.

Q: Can we manufacture a soul?

A: Yes we can

Q: What would it entail?

A: An understanding of Quantum Technology at it most fundamental level.

Q: What is the soul?

A: It is an inherently biologically based organism who orientation makes it aware of the wave function (particle/wave theory). One could conclude that in regards to soul substance the weight is not lost but rather is redistributed

Inherently the soul can be based on silicon. And perhaps in about 10
thousand years we will have the ability to reproduce it. I did not say
it was impossible my exact words were:

"So if we make a 'AI" type android, perhaps unless we incorporated in its design. Something at the level of technology equivalent to a human soul."

Have included a link to the referent site:

Soul Substance

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 09:49 PM
If we don't know "what" the soul is, how can one build one from silicon?

posted on Oct, 14 2002 @ 10:07 PM
We know that the soul has substance and that its understanding is well beyond our current capacity to understand. One plausible direction is that the soul is comparable to a Quantum computer. But even that does not bespeak of the potential complexity inherent is its design.

At present we cannot build one made of silicon, perhaps one day we will have gained the capacity to understand. My advise is that until then AI type technology might be a way to extend life. This in relation to a body or place for the brain to function. Beyond the years our biological bodies have the capacity to support our existence.

posted on Oct, 15 2002 @ 12:34 AM
Come on toltec, builing a soul??

Nobody can creat a soul but god. this is why gods so angry with scientists
who try to become God. they think they can become god and creat such
things as clones.

this makes me sick. you don't ever mess with Gods nature. scientists have and will
pay the price for doing so.

You can give me all the scientific explainations you want but gods truth is basic and simple.

God did not creat man to evolve from apes. god did not say i will creat
Apes and they will become creatures in my image and likeness.

he created man as man. man did not evolve from apes.

Moderate evolution is possible in certain forms but man was created in gods image and likeness.

William, do you still believe in atheism? No god?

How does the world form and just the nature of the world turns out so beautiful??

Did the big bang creat this beauty?

it comes from a source, an intelligent source.


posted on Oct, 15 2002 @ 07:10 AM
Hey kids! Look who's back, the village religion basher, Truth!

If this is the price (our current techno-centric society) for scientists messing with nature... I'll take it!

Yes.. no God... nothing.... nada... zip... zilch... except, of course, for your own demons you're struggling with now.

Amazing... one post since the return of Simon's "la la la la" ATS and Truth has already brought the "big bang" into a discussion including evolution. My, how Kent Hovind doth wash the brains.

posted on Oct, 15 2002 @ 06:49 PM
Truth tell that to someone who cares about your opinion

William what were your thoughts on the last response?

posted on Oct, 15 2002 @ 07:14 PM
Well... since you asked a direct question...

I don't believe a "soul" exists, and thus, there is no substance that defines it... as a result, it won't be possible to construct a container for it.

posted on Oct, 15 2002 @ 07:32 PM
William, might you explain Wilhelm Maximilian Wundt conclutions about the human spirit? I find it facinating that you seem to parallel his findings.

The Death of Care

"The spreading of Wundt's ideas had the effect of minimizing and erasing the notion of man as being or having an inner "personality", soul, or spirit. You are not viewed as a person with thoughts, feelings, ideas, will, hopes, and dreams. You are never appealed to on that level. Your "mind" is ignored. YOU are ignored. Those in control of education, psychology, and psychiatry largely view man as an animal to be controlled and manipulated. They view YOU as an animal. You are thought of as a piece of meat to be placed in suitable environments and controlled accordingly. This is the "modern", "scientific" approach. "

[Edited on 16-10-2002 by All Seeing Eye]

posted on Oct, 15 2002 @ 08:32 PM
I can respect that William but might I suggest that in today's age. A hospital bed can be modified to register the loss of weight of 1/16 of a gram or more. In my humble opinion the results would confirm or deny the 1907 experiment so why is it this experiment has never been repeated?

This is not to say that the experiment has not been accomplished. And that there exist data to support it as correct. But as far as I know those particular experiments were conducted thousands of years ago. The resultant data was applied to various vacations of which some have survived to this date.

My point is the experiment works. To be honest I am not suggesting, that as a result. We all run out the door and start singing "Hare Khishna Hare Rama"or for that matter its Christian equivalent (in all honesty, my purpose in presenting this issue is by far a more objective one).

The fact that such as the soul has mass is incredible. Furthermore it stretches to extremes, any conclusion made to date in modern physics on the subject of matter.

Since I arrived at the site I have been presenting this link. One each and every occasion I have asked for anyone to present. Whatever research or data they can locate which either supports or denies the claims, made in relation to the actual experiment presented. So far no response, as a result I am asking again?

William this is not a challenge nor is it an effort to present and augment which undermines your position. This is not the first forum I have visited on the Internet in which I have offered up the same question. I made efforts to locate the information myself with a program specifically suited to such searches (more than just one search engine at a time (10) with 1000 results per search engine). And with exception of what I presented above. Have found nothing which validates or invalidates an experiment, which was appropriately submitted to a scientific periodical in its time.

What are your thoughts?

[Edited on 16-10-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Oct, 15 2002 @ 08:46 PM
I recall that experiment. Wasnt the loss of weight around 3/4 of an ounce?

Does anyone have any links to this information? I would like to read it again.

posted on Oct, 15 2002 @ 08:50 PM

Fourth post down, presented by me at this thread. Link is titled "Soul Substance."

[Edited on 16-10-2002 by Toltec]

posted on Nov, 29 2003 @ 04:39 PM
BUMP!!! I thought it was a good idea to bring up some of the old topics...

top topics


log in